the neo earth

I’ve never been a fan of cemeteries, in fact, I would very much like to be cremated by alkaline hydrolysis and then have my remains dispersed into the sea.

To be honest, I never knew that Bukit Brown was known as Bukit Brown, I’ve always thought it to be the Lornie Road Cemetery. That said, I knew the place existed, and is also rife with traditional Chinese cultural activities that I may or may not agree with. Proof? An old article by the Straits Times on cars parked along Lornie Road during the Chinese “Qing Ming” festival of tomb sweeping, where Chinese pay their respects to their ancestors with a visit to the tombs. Perhaps the internet is now flooded by articles about Bukit Brown, so much so that cars parking alongside Lornie Road is no longer of importance, or that Google has failed on me – I can’t find that article!

If you’ve asked me just over a year ago if the damages done by the plans to build the highway could be mitigated after it was being built with more tree planting, I would naively say yes. But having learnt the characteristics of carbon sinks, and the different types of tree planting, I would contest such a move. Over the past year, I’ve learnt a lot – the tree you see along the streets are not the same as those found in woodlands (not Woodlands!), and quoting a phrase I learnt at the Biosphere – Mother Nature is very resistant, some species will still remain after everything else falls apart, but we humans may not be there to see it. So yes, go ahead and remove Bukit Brown, but when you’ve done that, do not regret the ecological impact you may have failed to predict.

For now, I need some comments on these posters and decide which is better!

While visiting MoMA on my last trip to New York City, I chanced upon an artwork that intrigued my thoughts on creating a series of posters focusing on environmental issues.

Since I returned from my trip, I’ve been pondering through my thoughts on how I could put that art work to use. And that was how the “If only” series was born. Let’s hope it doesn’t end here, and here is a draft of my work:

I appreciate all fair comments to help me improve on this poster!

[03/27/12 - Just updated it again! Thank you all for the feedback!]

I remember a couple of years ago when I was volunteering at an ad-hoc call center of the local chapter of a certain international organization involved in the disaster relief efforts in Myanmar. People were calling in then to enquire about ways they could donate money and if it’s possible to bring it down to our headquarters. Surprisingly, few knew how to get there – but that’s not important. So over and over again I repeated directions to the building, and some still couldn’t get it. So, I took out the laptop, wrote an email to LTA and requested for a signboard to point to the building, which I was surprised isn’t in place yet, given the history of the building. How hard can it be, given that there are signboards to seemingly everything. Well I found out, pretty hard, this is the reply that was given:

Dear Mr Leong
Thank you for your request.
We note the purpose of the signs.  However, we are concerned about the safety of road users.  Advertisements such as signs displayed along public streets  distract road users and pose safety hazards to them.  In addition, they clutter the streetscape.  In this respect, we are unable to display the signs along Penang Lane.
Please feel free to contact me for clarifications.  Thank you.
Lame-O-Guy
Road Infrastructure Management
Road Operations & Community Partnership
Land Transport Authority

I’m kidding about the name – but the rest of the message, has been copied in its entirety. I replied to the message, but never received any reply. So it surprised me that sometime ago, MediaCorp launched a moving billboard – literally. Touted as a new Out-of-Home (OOH) platform, the “On-The-Move Billboard”, features three large display panels: 7.3m x 3m on two sides and 2.1m x 3m on the rear.

If you hate junk mail just like me, say “aye!”. Well, I believe no one likes having their mailbox – whether the online or a physical one – to be spammed with junk. Not only does it obstruct the view of the more important messages, the physical copies of such unwanted messages is also physically taxing on our environment. To make matters worst, advertisers are lured by the accessibility and affordability of these methods. Printing of the hard copy spam mails only gets cheaper when the quantity increases.

Besides the environmental damages resulting from the depletion of our forests, junk mail can also be a nuisance to our living environment. A recent post Facebook by opposition MP Pritam Singh, clearly shows the extent of the problem. In the post, he asked residents for their cooperation in keeping the estates clean – an issue which was also brought up by the Prime Minister- and posted photos of areas where he found trash lying around. Not surprisingly, the letter box area was filled with a sea of flyers. While the Housing Board has tried to alleviate the problem by installing locks to the flaps - only the postman has the key – and creating a boundary for the trash, Singpost’s Admail did nothing to help. In fact, it made things simpler for advertisers by offering to send the junk mail for them, betraying the right of access given to the postman.

So instead of making things simpler for the advertisers, we should use every possible mean to discourage the printing of flyers. To start off, the Ministry of Information Communication and the Arts should implement a National “no junk mail” database. This, will alert advertisers of people who do not wish to receive advertisments in their mail, eliminating the redundancies of sending to people who would eventually dump the flyers. Registrants  will also be issued a sticker to be affixed on the mailbox to alert advertisers that they do not wish to receive any flyers.

As a “fine” city, it is without a doubt that such a policy will come with a fine for offenders. Offenders who flout the restrictions for more than 5 units a month will be liable for charges and fines. The goal is to eventually eliminate the use of printed flyers, saving our trees and keeping our neighborhoods clean. And just like the water conservation tax levied on excessive use of water, we could implement a “tree-conservation” tax. The amount to be varied in an incremental way, will help to reduce excessive printing, especially for promotional activities.

The proposals mentioned may not be easy to implement – no new policy is ever easy. Yet, it is an important step towards a cleaner and better environment for everyone.

These days, the world seems to be circling around everything that’s “Green”. Pro-Environmentalism is “cool”, be it with Hollywood actors or world politicians. Just take a look at Germany – the world’s largest political party advocating environmental causes, the Green Party recently scored its most remarkable win in a state election over the democrats who have been holding on to power for almost 60 years.

This it seems is not enough for environmentalists around the world. It seems that environmentalists around the world have tried hard to designate at least a day every month as an “environment day”. Just to name a few: there’s Earth Day (April 22), Earth Hour (last Saturday of March), World Environment Day (June 5), etc. Not that such commemorative days aren’t good, but surely environmentalists understand the meaning of “economies of scale”? By pushing for relatively similar messages through such campaigns seems like a waste of resources that could have been better spent. In fact, I did a search on the difference between Earth Day and World Environment Day (WED), found out that the main difference between both campaigns is simply the initiator. While WED is backed by the United Nations and has been around since 1972, the Earth Day kicked off in 1969 from the United States. Other than that, both campaigns share relatively the same objectives.

As an environmentalist myself, I am totally against replicating similar movements. Not only is it a waste of resources, it dilutes the message as the impact of each message starts to dwindle. However, this isn’t what made me so pissed today. Lately, I developed a habit of collecting environmental related articles from newspapers for my scrap book, and while I was looking through the pages of a certain tabloid, an advertisement caught my eye. The advertisement by French hypermarket chain, Carrefour, was promoting “Go Green with Carrefour” on World Environment Day 2011. The event supported by local environmental big wigs, the National Environment Agency and Singapore Environmental Council promoted the use of reusable bags, rechargeable batteries and LED table lamps.

As perfect as the advertisement tries to be, it was a major disappointment in my opinion. Besides the promotion for the rechargeable batteries and LED table lamps, Carrefour also advertised the sale of 2 other products: Russet Potatoes from the USA, Danone Mineral Water. Ironically for the promotion that aims to bring environmental awareness to our shoppers, Carrefour didn’t seem to realize that promoting bottled drinks ain’t helping the environment at all. Furthermore, I wonder how environmentally conscious one can be if he/she chooses to eat potatoes that traveled half way around the world. Not only does this look bad on Carrefour, it also undermined the support given by the NEA and SEC.

I’m not sure whether I’m the only one who found these inappropriate, but I certainly do hope that Carrefour will review it’s policy on such marketing efforts. As for the organizations which play a supportive role of such events, the time has probably come for more stringent checks on whether partners have tried to unfairly profit from each campaign, and possibly lead them towards the right direction. It is one to lend a good name in support of a good cause, but to allow a good “non-profit” name to be tarnished by profiteering intentions is simply not worth it.

Japan’s energy crisis gave us a number of lessons. It showed us how dependent we can be on energy, and especially so on the much hated nuclear energy. Environmentalists all over the world scream in chorus of the anti-nuke chants as Fukushima Daiichi laid in ruins. But more importantly, the destruction upon the city showed us how much energy we waste on beautifying our cityscapes. The colorful lights that run all over the signboards and buildings, the huge LED panels with music blaring in the background, the spotlights cast upon the magnificent towers  to make them seem even more impressive.

Some time ago, I had the opportunity to meet the permanent secretary of the National Climate Change Secretariat, an agency under the Prime Ministers’ Office. While most participants of the dialog session were interested in how NCCS could help them to help the community, I was more interested in the policies  that would shape the future of our Green economy in the country. I wanted to know the stance that Singapore has on fighting climate change.

I fully agree that we should not let fighting change affect our competitiveness, in fact, I believe we should make it our competitive advantage. What bothers me more about the Kyoto Protocol and COP15 are the complicated formulas that nations have come up with to mitigate their unwillingness to adopt green policies. The figures circling around the “business-as-usual” operations only put the common folk into more confusion.

Big time international policies aside, I also wanted to find out what other motion has the government put forth to clear the puff around us. So at the end of the dialog session when the permanent secretary, Mr. Tan came over to my group and asked if we had any more questions, I jumped to the gun and asked, “Sir, I used to live in Buffalo where the responsibility of being sustainable didn’t just lie in the hands of the people, but also that of the city council. Besides the policies and campaigns to be environmentally friendly, the city breathes sustainability. You don’t get the light pollution we have here, and even street lights turn off in an alternate fashion, traffic lights go into the flashing amber mode, on roads where traffic is not as heavy. Will Singapore consider doing something similar?”. He thought for a moment and replied that it is not possible for Singapore as a city to take similar measures, our buildings have to be lit, our streets have to be lit, and our traffic lights have to be lit. These lightings provide the night scene that we have, as well as safety and security of our streets. To that, I couldn’t fully agree.

Yes it is important that we create a landscape that we can be proud of, but at what cost? Is it so important that as we brighten our streets for the Formula 1 race downtown, we have to further brighten the buildings in the vicinity for them to look good? Are the street and traffic lights being sufficiently utilized? The park behind my house used to operate on a schedule that shuts it off at 12 midnight and comes back on at 5.30am for about an hour or so. Few years after the park was built, the lights were changed to dimmer ones and started operating through the night. I believe the rationale for this move is to allow the park to be used through the night, but seriously, no one does. The dimmer lights were not bright enough to provide the security one will need while walking through the park past 12 midnight, and they are better off taking on the streets in front of my house (the row of houses separates the park and the street). So is this really essential? Aren’t we saving to waste?

Similarly, Mr. Tan mentioned that it is impossible to turn off any traffic light in Singapore. I am sure most Singaporean drivers, especially those who have accustomed to 4-way stops can attest that this is not true. The only exit from my estate on to the main road is a perfect example. The main road outside the estate is one of the most used roads linking 2 towns, and during peak hours, traffic congestion on the main road is a norm. However, off peak traffic couldn’t be more different. Even during the day, stretches of the road can be empty for 10-15 seconds, yet cars are kept waiting for 2 minutes for the lights to change, and I’ve seen on numerous occasions when drivers simply ignore the lights and move out.  Keep in mind that this is the only exit in a fairly large and growing estate with an average of 2-3 cars per household, yet the presence of traffic signals is of no importance at certain times of the day, what about the many under utilized junctions around the island?

Our government is known to introduce campaigns and policies to get the people working on an initiative, but it is high time that the government itself walk the talk. Have our senior civil servants and ministers really walked the grounds to understand the problems? Plainly dismissing suggestions based on numbers from their statistical sheets will do no better good than claiming that a meal at the hawker center costs S$1. “Listen” has become the new buzzword in parliament, and let’s hope it brings about the necessary changes to make Singapore a better place.

Are we far too bright?

2002 marked a significant milestone in Singapore’s bid to achieve sustainable water needs when then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong toasted the crowd of 60,000 Singaporeans during National Day with NEWater. NEWater, essentially water obtained through a reverse-osmosis process, albeit added processes to make it even purer. Yet, as we inch towards the tenth year of its introduction, we wonder – have Singaporeans really accepted NEWater as part of their lives?

Contrary to what the government would like people to believe (Clean, Green, and Blue), support for NEWater in general has remained low. Even after nearly a decade, Singaporeans still attach a stigma to the idea drinking water recycled from the sewage. Not that I have any qualms drinking NEWater – in fact I would rather be drinking NEWater everyday in Pulau Tekong over the highly-chlorinated water found on the island (Chlorine amongst being a carcinogenic agent presents numerous harmful effects on the human body), but the fact is that the sustained marketing campaigns for NEWater have not been effective towards an acceptance of the source.

While reception from non-domestic users has been positive since NEWater is in fact cleaner than water obtained naturally, acceptance by the general public has been less so. A simple survey of my friends on Facebook with 30 voters – not much, but it still tells what it should with even friends of friends voting – returned with only 4 people who say that they would pay for a bottle of NEWater. So where did the bottles of NEWater go?

Well, having organized a number of events over the past few years, I can safely tell you that organizers simply love NEWater. Why? It’s free. No pinch on the pocket if people start throwing them away. It does pain me to see the waste though. Which is my point exactly.

Each and every year, we manufacture thousands and thousands of bottles of NEWater, giving them away for free, inadvertently putting more junk into our bins. Yet, we haven’t been able to change the perception of people. We then scratch our heads thinking, what went wrong? May be the marketing wasn’t good enough, so we changed the packaging and put out more bottles of NEWater out there for people to waste – I mean try. What we really need to do though, is read the Black Swan Theory – I’ve only read a few pages of it, but the idea’s there alright. There is simply no use in telling people that we need NEWater in order to survive. People will only realize it when that day comes.

But no, we don’t have to stop the production of NEWater, we just have to divert our resources, and concentrate on putting the treated water to good use. YES! While people take time to decide that we are really running out of water, we should focus our efforts on pushing for the maximum utility of what is available to us. Consider the amount of junk we will save, the objective we had initially set out on, and you know it’s time to make the change.